ObjectiveTo systematically review the association between angiotension-converting enzyme (ACE) gene insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism and osteoarthritis (OA) by using meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). MethodsThe PubMed, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, VIP, and WanFang Data were searched up to October 12th, 2016 for case-control or cohort studies on the correlation between ACE I/D polymorphism and OA risk. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis and TSA analysis were performed using Stata 13.1 software and TSA v0.9 soft ware. ResultsA total of six case-control studies involving 1 165 OA patients and 1 029 controls were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that the ACE I/D was associated with OA risk (DD+DI vs. II: OR=1.72, 95%CI 1.02 to 2.90, P=0.04; DI vs. II: OR=1.65, 95%CI 1.06 to 2.56, P=0.03). Subgroup analysis of ethnicity showed that, in Caucasians, the ACE I/D was associated with OA risk (DD vs. DI+II: OR=2.10, 95%CI 1.54 to 2.85, P<0.01; DD+DI vs. II: OR=3.11, 95%CI 2.20 to 4.39, P<0.01; DD vs. II: OR=4.01, 95%CI 2.68 to 6.00, P<0.01; DI vs. II: OR=2.65, 95%CI 1.06 to 2.56, P<0.01; D vs. I: OR=2.11, 95%CI 1.72 to 2.58, P=0.73). And TSA showed that all of the cumulative Z-curve strode the conventional and TSA threshold value which suggested the result of the association between ACE I/D polymorphism and OA in Caucasians was very reliable. However, the association did not exist in Asians (DD vs. DI+II: OR=0.80, 95%CI 0.60 to 1.07, P=0.13; DD+DI vs. II: OR=1.08, 95%CI 0.87 to 1.35, P=0.49; DD vs. II: OR=0.86, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.20, P=0.38; DI vs. II: OR=1.18, 95%CI 0.93 to 1.50, P=0.19; D vs. I: OR=0.93, 95%CI 0.83 to 1.14, P=0.73). And the results of TSA displayed that all of the cumulative Z-curve did not strode both TSA threshold value and required information size line excepting for DD vs. DI+II genetic model which suggested that the sample-size in Asians was insufficient. ConclusionsThe ACE D allele maybe a risk factor for OA in Caucasians. However, the association between ACE I/D polymorphism and OA risk in Asians still need more studies to prove.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the safety and efficacy of autologous bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) transplantation for spinal cord injury (SCI) patients.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) of autologous BMSCs transplantation for SCI patients from inception to June 8th, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 16 studies involving 954 SCI patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: BMSCs could significantly increase the patients’ ASIA motor score (MD=6.91, 95%CI 3.95 to 9.87, P<0.000 01), ASIA light-tough score (MD=11.79, 95%CI 6.66 to 16.39,P<0.000 01), ASIA pain score (MD=8.76, 95%CI 4.11 to 13.40,P=0.000 2), Barthel index score (MD=8.47, 95%CI 7.32 to 9.61, P<0.000 01). It could also improve the ASIA grade (OR=3.75, 95%CI 2.35 to 5.99,P<0.01), and decrease the bladder urine residue (MD=–23.32, 95%CI –46.27 to –0.37,P=0.05). The complications mainly included headache, low-grade fever, and so forth. No serious adverse event and abnormal tissue formation occurred.ConclusionAutologous BMSCs transplantation is a safe and effective therapy for SCI. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of autologous mononuclear cells transplantation in osteonecrosis of the femoral head.MethodsPubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library were electronically searched to collect randomized and non-randomized controlled trials on autologous mononuclear cells transplantation for osteonecrosis of the femoral head from inception to July 31th, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literatures, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.4 software.ResultsA total of 17 studies involving 645 hips in mononuclear cells group and 557 hips in cell-free group were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that compared with cell-free therapy, mononuclear cells therapy could improve hip function in term of Hairrs score (MD=8.11, 95%CI 4.36 to 11.87, P<0.000 1), Merle D`Aubigné Postel score (MD=2.23, 95%CI 0.97 to 3.49, P=0.000 5), WOMAC score (MD=−10.81, 95%CI −15.80 to −5.81, P<0.000 1), Lequesne index (MD=−2.97, 95%CI −5.42 to −0.52, P=0.02) and alleviate the pain (MD=−9.13, 95%CI −12.40 to −5.86, P<0.000 01), delay the progression of radiological staging (RR=0.55, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.89, P=0.01) and reduce the rate of total hip arthroplasty (RR=0.61, 95%CI 0.43 to 0.86, P=0.005). In terms of safety, mononuclear cell therapy did not increase the rate of complications (RR=0.77, 95%CI 0.33 to 1.83, P=0.56).ConclusionsThe current evidence shows that autologous mononuclear cells therapy is a safe and effective way for osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
ObjectiveTo develop the questionnaire and test its reliability for investigating route, prevention, and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in medical staffs.MethodsThis questionnaire was development based on the COVID-19 relevant guidelines, official documents issued by the National Health Committee of the People's Republic of China, and published studies. The development group performed repeated discussions and drafted the first questionnaire, then performed expert consultation and revised the draft according to their suggestions. Eventually, some frontline medical staffs were invited to carry out pre-test investigation of the questionnaire and test its reliability.ResultsThe first draft included 48 items; 18 experts were invited in the first round questionnaire and 10 experts in the second round questionnaire. The positive coefficient of experts in these two rounds was both greater than 75%, and the authority coefficient of experts' opinions was greater than 0.70. The variation coefficient of these items was between 0.00 and 0.35, the coordination coefficient of experts was 0.193 (P<0.05). The experts of above two rounds put forward 14 suggestions for text modification or adjustment options of some items; after the development group held repeatedly discussions, a total of 8 items were performed secondary consultation and finally reached consensus. The final questionnaire included two domains of questionnaire before and after confirmed diagnosis. The domain "before confirmed diagnosis" covered 4 sections and 29 items involving infectious cause, plan and knowledge of prevention and control, and psychological symptoms. The domain "after confirmed diagnosis" covered 5 sections and 21 items, included symptoms, treatment, and psychological status after diagnosis; impact on the surrounding environment and people, and awareness of protection after infection. The pre-test results showed that the total items were considerably numerous, some items were difficult to understand, some laboratory results and treatment conditions were ambiguous, etc. After modification and re-testing, the test-re-test reliability of each domain was between 0.74 and 0.93, and the overall re-test reliability of the questionnaire content was 0.82.ConclusionsThis research has developed a questionnaire for investigating infection process, prevention and control of SARS-CoV-2 infection in medical staff, and the items considered two domains prior to and after confirmed diagnosis. The reliability and practicability of the questionnaire are acceptable.